Now, our professor, regarding the issue of Ibn Jurayj’s *'ana'ana* from Ata.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Al-Halabi: Good, our teacher, regarding the issue of Ibn Jurayj’s *'an 'an* from Ata.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: From, and he said, our teacher, you do not distinguish between, meaning you do not distinguish, meaning in more than one place you say, what is the ruling of *qala* (he said) versus *'an* (from)? And what is established with me is this, so there is a difference in this form regarding al-Nakha'i?
The Shaykh: The difference may be due to our lack of knowledge of the details concerning Ibn Jurayj’s statement, such as the details transmitted regarding al-Nakha'i.
Al-Halabi: Fine, correct, that is right.
The Shaykh: This is clarified and detailed, so the soul is reassured by the distinction between the two matters; but there, what is narrated from Ibn Jurayj, I do not remember the truth, nor do I know if the narration is authentic. Do you remember who narrated this?
Al-Halabi: From Ibn Jurayj?
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi: I think it is authentic, from Ibn Abi Khaythamah.
The Shaykh: Then Ibn Abi Khaythamah narrates from Ibn Jurayj that he said.
Al-Halabi: If you say "Ata said," then you heard it from him.
The Shaykh: Good, but there is nothing in contrast.
Al-Halabi: There is nothing in contrast.
The Shaykh : Here is the problem.
Al-Halabi: Here is the problem, especially for the one who holds this distinction, my teacher... In the *Mawqifa* in the modern scientific treatise... it says the ruling of *qala* is the ruling of *'an*.
The Shaykh: Yes, this is the rule.
Al-Halabi: Yes, this is the rule here, meaning the explicit mention of hearing.
The Shaykh : That is it.
Al-Halabi: Or the specification, or reading it in the chapter.
The Shaykh: Yes, this is the rule, and the principle, as is not hidden from you, is to adhere to the rules unless something comes that specifies them; so in what concerns al-Nakha'i, there is a specification, and it is not so regarding Ibn Jurayj.
Al-Halabi: Yes, correct, our brother Nizam told us about his brother Sa'id’s treatise, I have not seen it yet, is it?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: A copy of it.
The Shaykh: This, my sir, is filled with hatred, in fact, when you read his book, you feel completely that this is a person who has made it his habit, like al-Albani’s habit.
Al-Halabi : It is so...
The Shaykh: Yes, so one who follows al-Albani in his errors, in his opinion, he may not have missed a single one; but, Subhan Allah, these are the people of desires, meaning they do not benefit others and they harm themselves, because the benefit, as is known to everyone, is through being free from following desires.
The questioner: Who is Rashid?
The Shaykh: No, no, you know his identity, he is Egyptian.
Al-Halabi: Of course... and he is from the Ismailis, and he has a farm in Ismailia, and I knew him in the last days of my trip, and he is there, and he is an agricultural engineer.
The Shaykh: In Ismailia, did you say, or where?
Al-Halabi: Yes, in Ismailia.
The Shaykh: What is in my mind is that he is like a student of Ali al-Ghamari.
Al-Halabi: Of course, he is a student of al-Ghamari, and a student of Abu Ghuddah, and a student of all this group.
The Shaykh: No problem, but we have something, proofs or...
Al-Halabi: I have proofs that he is a student of al-Ghamari, he has a book called "Fath al-Aziz bi Asanid 'Abd al-Aziz," which is al-Ghamari, and he has another book called "Iktishaf al-Rahiq bi Asanid Sayyid 'Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq," and he mentions the shaykhs and so on.
The Shaykh: This is what is in my mind, that he is al-Ghamari; the point is a hadith I used to cite in the etiquettes of the wedding... disclosing the secret of the spouses.
Al-Halabi: Yes, yes, the hadith is in Sahih Muslim.
The Shaykh: The hadith is in Sahih Muslim, he worked on it for pages, yes, and he took the biography of 'Umar ibn Hamza and read in the end that he is trustworthy and relied upon, and he worked on an introduction, I think he is the first disbeliever to do so; because it is not conceivable that a person seeking knowledge who has smelled the scent of hadith science would explicitly say that everything in the two Sahihs is authentic, and most of it provides certainty, and a little of it provides preponderance of probability, and it is not permissible, yes, to critique the two Sahihs from the aspect of chains, because it is a matter of what? ... It is most like the issue of taqlid (following) and ijtihad (independent reasoning), how, meaning in fiqh, the door of ijtihad was closed like this; but who says this, and I used to wonder if this man is a poor soul if he is criticizing al-Albani from this angle, because I criticized some hadiths of Muslim, well, the al-Ghamaris are worse than me in this aspect, and he is a student of them, I wonder if he is sincere in refuting al-Albani? No, by Allah, this is impossible, I compared him to Abu Ghuddah, Abu Ghuddah, this wicked one, who took my terminology that I used in the takhrij of the 'Aqida al-Tahawiyyah, "authentic, al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated it," "authentic, Muslim narrated it," to the end, he said this means that the hadith is not authentic unless... and he also took against me, as you remember, or help me remember, because the time is far, that I stopped authenticating "And my slave continues to draw near to Me with voluntary deeds," even though it is in Sahih al-Bukhari.
Al-Halabi: A very long speech.
The Shaykh: Yes, my intention is that I mentioned this speech... I wish I had weakened it so that he would have an argument, meaning I did not stop authenticating it because of so-and-so, so he came and exploited this point, and I came in the introduction, as you know, where are you criticizing me on this point, your shaykh, this al-Kawthari, whom you are proud to claim affiliation with to the extent that you take the title al-Kawthari, this one denied hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, and I listed types of these hadiths, I found this one is exactly like his brother in misguidance, the last thing that came out of me regarding the fiqh of the Sunnah, complete grace, this al-Ghamari, 'Abd Allah, the wicked one, has a treatise called "al-Sabah al-Satir."
Al-Halabi: "al-Sabah al-Satir" regarding the prayer of the traveler.
The Shaykh: Yes, he denied a hadith, first, we do not know who preceded him, second, he did not rely on a scientific hadith rule, and it is the hadith of Urwa from Aisha, she said:, he said this hadith is weak and anomalous; and how did he prove its anomaly? As you know, the innovators cling to, even if it is threads of the moon, he brings you a narration from here and a narration from here and a narration from here, among the narrations he brought in this treatise, and among his wicked deception, he says, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh narrated in his Musnad with a chain meeting the conditions ofThe Shaykh: from Abu Bakr ibn 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn Hazm from Aisha that Jibril (peace be upon him), when the prayer was prescribed, came down and prayed with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) the Fajr prayer with two rak'ahs, then he prayed the Zuhr with four, then the 'Asr with four; he builds on this that if the prayer was prescribed with four and four.
Al-Halabi : Glory be to Allah.
The Shaykh : Do you understand?
Al-Halabi : Is that clear?
The Shaykh: Yes, and he brought other hadiths, it is clear that it is mursal (missing the Companion link) and has no value, and he brought two hadiths from the route of al-Hasan al-Basri, he considers them two hadiths because he numbered them serially, and it is one hadith, but from one route with such wording and from another route with such wording, and he gave them two numbers, so the number is four, he made them five because he made the mursal narrations of al-Hasan al-Basri two, and it is one; yes, with these hadiths, all of which are defective, he demolished the hadith of Urwa and built on this that the prayer was prescribed with four and four; and therefore, the statement that the prayer of the traveler is two rak'ahs and they are obligatory, this is an error, and the strange thing is that he refuted in this treatise the treatise of his brother al-Zamzami, Muhammad, look, these al-Ghamaris are people of desires, this one demolished another hadith from Sahih Muslim without any proof, it is the one where a man, I forgot his name now, asked Ibn 'Abbas in Mecca, if we pray behind you, do we complete, and if we pray alone, do we shorten? He said: It is the Sunnah of your Prophet. This same hadith, al-Zamzami, because he holds that it is obligatory to pray two rak'ahs whether he prays alone or prays with the imam, this one refuted him explicitly; he said this hadith is weak, who is this? Muhammad al-Zamzami, his brother 'Abd Allah refuted him and proved the hadith, and it is true, but he demolished the hadith
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: From, and he said, our teacher, you do not distinguish between, meaning you do not distinguish, meaning in more than one place you say, what is the ruling of *qala* (he said) versus *'an* (from)? And what is established with me is this, so there is a difference in this form regarding al-Nakha'i?
The Shaykh: The difference may be due to our lack of knowledge of the details concerning Ibn Jurayj’s statement, such as the details transmitted regarding al-Nakha'i.
Al-Halabi: Fine, correct, that is right.
The Shaykh: This is clarified and detailed, so the soul is reassured by the distinction between the two matters; but there, what is narrated from Ibn Jurayj, I do not remember the truth, nor do I know if the narration is authentic. Do you remember who narrated this?
Al-Halabi: From Ibn Jurayj?
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi: I think it is authentic, from Ibn Abi Khaythamah.
The Shaykh: Then Ibn Abi Khaythamah narrates from Ibn Jurayj that he said.
Al-Halabi: If you say "Ata said," then you heard it from him.
The Shaykh: Good, but there is nothing in contrast.
Al-Halabi: There is nothing in contrast.
The Shaykh : Here is the problem.
Al-Halabi: Here is the problem, especially for the one who holds this distinction, my teacher... In the *Mawqifa* in the modern scientific treatise... it says the ruling of *qala* is the ruling of *'an*.
The Shaykh: Yes, this is the rule.
Al-Halabi: Yes, this is the rule here, meaning the explicit mention of hearing.
The Shaykh : That is it.
Al-Halabi: Or the specification, or reading it in the chapter.
The Shaykh: Yes, this is the rule, and the principle, as is not hidden from you, is to adhere to the rules unless something comes that specifies them; so in what concerns al-Nakha'i, there is a specification, and it is not so regarding Ibn Jurayj.
Al-Halabi: Yes, correct, our brother Nizam told us about his brother Sa'id’s treatise, I have not seen it yet, is it?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: A copy of it.
The Shaykh: This, my sir, is filled with hatred, in fact, when you read his book, you feel completely that this is a person who has made it his habit, like al-Albani’s habit.
Al-Halabi : It is so...
The Shaykh: Yes, so one who follows al-Albani in his errors, in his opinion, he may not have missed a single one; but, Subhan Allah, these are the people of desires, meaning they do not benefit others and they harm themselves, because the benefit, as is known to everyone, is through being free from following desires.
The questioner: Who is Rashid?
The Shaykh: No, no, you know his identity, he is Egyptian.
Al-Halabi: Of course... and he is from the Ismailis, and he has a farm in Ismailia, and I knew him in the last days of my trip, and he is there, and he is an agricultural engineer.
The Shaykh: In Ismailia, did you say, or where?
Al-Halabi: Yes, in Ismailia.
The Shaykh: What is in my mind is that he is like a student of Ali al-Ghamari.
Al-Halabi: Of course, he is a student of al-Ghamari, and a student of Abu Ghuddah, and a student of all this group.
The Shaykh: No problem, but we have something, proofs or...
Al-Halabi: I have proofs that he is a student of al-Ghamari, he has a book called "Fath al-Aziz bi Asanid 'Abd al-Aziz," which is al-Ghamari, and he has another book called "Iktishaf al-Rahiq bi Asanid Sayyid 'Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq," and he mentions the shaykhs and so on.
The Shaykh: This is what is in my mind, that he is al-Ghamari; the point is a hadith I used to cite in the etiquettes of the wedding... disclosing the secret of the spouses.
Al-Halabi: Yes, yes, the hadith is in Sahih Muslim.
The Shaykh: The hadith is in Sahih Muslim, he worked on it for pages, yes, and he took the biography of 'Umar ibn Hamza and read in the end that he is trustworthy and relied upon, and he worked on an introduction, I think he is the first disbeliever to do so; because it is not conceivable that a person seeking knowledge who has smelled the scent of hadith science would explicitly say that everything in the two Sahihs is authentic, and most of it provides certainty, and a little of it provides preponderance of probability, and it is not permissible, yes, to critique the two Sahihs from the aspect of chains, because it is a matter of what? ... It is most like the issue of taqlid (following) and ijtihad (independent reasoning), how, meaning in fiqh, the door of ijtihad was closed like this; but who says this, and I used to wonder if this man is a poor soul if he is criticizing al-Albani from this angle, because I criticized some hadiths of Muslim, well, the al-Ghamaris are worse than me in this aspect, and he is a student of them, I wonder if he is sincere in refuting al-Albani? No, by Allah, this is impossible, I compared him to Abu Ghuddah, Abu Ghuddah, this wicked one, who took my terminology that I used in the takhrij of the 'Aqida al-Tahawiyyah, "authentic, al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated it," "authentic, Muslim narrated it," to the end, he said this means that the hadith is not authentic unless... and he also took against me, as you remember, or help me remember, because the time is far, that I stopped authenticating "And my slave continues to draw near to Me with voluntary deeds," even though it is in Sahih al-Bukhari.
Al-Halabi: A very long speech.
The Shaykh: Yes, my intention is that I mentioned this speech... I wish I had weakened it so that he would have an argument, meaning I did not stop authenticating it because of so-and-so, so he came and exploited this point, and I came in the introduction, as you know, where are you criticizing me on this point, your shaykh, this al-Kawthari, whom you are proud to claim affiliation with to the extent that you take the title al-Kawthari, this one denied hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, and I listed types of these hadiths, I found this one is exactly like his brother in misguidance, the last thing that came out of me regarding the fiqh of the Sunnah, complete grace, this al-Ghamari, 'Abd Allah, the wicked one, has a treatise called "al-Sabah al-Satir."
Al-Halabi: "al-Sabah al-Satir" regarding the prayer of the traveler.
The Shaykh: Yes, he denied a hadith, first, we do not know who preceded him, second, he did not rely on a scientific hadith rule, and it is the hadith of Urwa from Aisha, she said:
The prayer was made obligatory in two units, two units, and it was left as is in travel and increased in residence.
فرضت الصلاة ركعتين ركعتين فأقرت في السفر وزيدت في الحضرAl-Halabi : Glory be to Allah.
The Shaykh : Do you understand?
Al-Halabi : Is that clear?
The Shaykh: Yes, and he brought other hadiths, it is clear that it is mursal (missing the Companion link) and has no value, and he brought two hadiths from the route of al-Hasan al-Basri, he considers them two hadiths because he numbered them serially, and it is one hadith, but from one route with such wording and from another route with such wording, and he gave them two numbers, so the number is four, he made them five because he made the mursal narrations of al-Hasan al-Basri two, and it is one; yes, with these hadiths, all of which are defective, he demolished the hadith of Urwa and built on this that the prayer was prescribed with four and four; and therefore, the statement that the prayer of the traveler is two rak'ahs and they are obligatory, this is an error, and the strange thing is that he refuted in this treatise the treatise of his brother al-Zamzami, Muhammad, look, these al-Ghamaris are people of desires, this one demolished another hadith from Sahih Muslim without any proof, it is the one where a man, I forgot his name now, asked Ibn 'Abbas in Mecca, if we pray behind you, do we complete, and if we pray alone, do we shorten? He said: It is the Sunnah of your Prophet. This same hadith, al-Zamzami, because he holds that it is obligatory to pray two rak'ahs whether he prays alone or prays with the imam, this one refuted him explicitly; he said this hadith is weak, who is this? Muhammad al-Zamzami, his brother 'Abd Allah refuted him and proved the hadith, and it is true, but he demolished the hadith
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.